"Unicorns and fairies are factitious ideas "

So are gods. — Bloginton Blakley

There is quite a lot of evidence for God:

1) Non-causal cosmological argument, see:
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5077/time-has-a-start/p1
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5059/an-argument-for-gods-existence/p1
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...)
3) Fine tuning of the universe
4) The Big Bang
5) Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is no evidence against God that I'm aware of. Starting at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition 'Is there a God?', I've assigned a probability that each of the above means the existence of God and then combined the probabilities:

1) 50% + 50% x 50% = 75%
2) 75% + 25% x 25% = 87.5%
3) 87.5% + 12.5% x 75%= 96.9%
4) 96.9% + 3.1% x 50% = 98.5%
5) 98.5% + 1.5% x 25% = 98.9% probability of God

What other real thing do you need to ask that question about?
— Bloginton Blakley

numbers.. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

And the Laws of Nature. Do they exist? And if so, where? Show me one!

Right, you can’t show me one. All you can say is, ‘if x is the case, then according to {such and such law}, then y is the predicted outcome’. And furthermore, in many cases you’d be right! But, in what sense does that law exist? How can we know what it is, aside from the predictions it makes? What is the ‘ontological status’ of ‘natural laws’?

Here’s the thing: there might be an answer to that question, but that answer is not known to, and possibly forever outside the scope of, science itself.

Furthermore, I should add that I don’t believe God exists. But that is because ‘existence’ is precisely what ‘the transcendent’ is transcendent in relation to. However, the thread doesn’t ask whether ‘God exists’; it asks whether ‘God is real’. And if metaphysics is to mean anything at all, then it needs to be understood that these are different propositions.

There is quite a lot of evidence for God: — Devans99

No evidence of any of these concludes that there is a God. That's an assumption made before the conclusion.Begging the question, Burden of proof, false cause, Texas sharpshooter, ambiguity, anecdotal, post-rationalize special pleading, composition/division - are all fallacies that needs to be avoided throughout all arguments. You can't ignore them. While confirmation bias, dunning-kruger, belief bias, the backfire effect, fundamental attribution error, anchoring are all biases to avoid.

There is no evidence against God that I'm aware of. — Devans99

Burden of proof applies to the one making the claim. Read Russel and stop ignoring counter-arguments.

I've assigned a probability that each of the above means the existence of God and then combined the probabilities: — Devans99

You cannot combine probabilities like that and how do you even calculate these probabilities, you are just pulling numbers out of the air to support your conclusion. I don't know how many fallacies this includes, but at least the Gambler's fallacy.

I think you are trying too hard to prove your conclusion without actually doing proper arguments for them.

Wayfarer,

None of that is really my point.

My point is that I have no reason to treat the god idea any differently than I do FSM idea.

No evidence of any of these concludes that there is a God. That's an assumption made before the conclusion.Begging the question, Burden of proof, false cause, Texas sharpshooter, ambiguity, anecdotal, post-rationalize special pleading, composition/division - are all fallacies that needs to be avoided throughout all arguments. You can't ignore them. While confirmation bias, dunning-kruger, belief bias, the backfire effect, fundamental attribution error, anchoring are all biases to avoid. — Christoffer

They conclude that there is a creator and that is my basic definition of God. If you can point out any specific example of a fallacy in my argument, I'd be happy to discuss it.

You cannot combine probabilities like that and how do you even calculate these probabilities — Christoffer

I have estimated the probability that each piece of evidence on its own points to a creator of the universe:

1) Non-causal cosmological argument 50%
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...) 25%
3) Fine tuning of the universe 75%
4) The Big Bang 50%
5) Why is there something rather than nothing? 25%

These are just estimates; obviously feel free to plug in your own numbers. The method however is sound:

You start at 50% probability for the question 'is there a creator/god? - IE because no evidence for/against has been considered yet. The first step of the calculation then is:

1) (start at 50% percent) + (probability of Non-causal cosmological argument 50%) x (50% remaining)
1) 50% + 50% x 50% = 75%

So the logic is, you start at 50% sure there is a God, then in the 50% 'remaining' where you think there is no God. Then you allow for the first piece of evidence, giving 50% + 50% x 50% = 75% sure there is a God. This is repeated for each separate piece of evidence to give approximately 99% sure there is a God.

They conclude that there is a creator and that is my basic definition of God. If you can point out any specific example of a fallacy in my argument, I'd be happy to discuss it. — Devans99

None of them conclude there to be a creator. They could just as well point to an interdimensional stone that hit another interdimensional stone and the blast resulted in our four-dimensional spacetime through Big Bang. It's been stated over and over throughout many threads of discussion why it's flawed to assume the truth of the conclusion when doing the premises, that's begging the question. And all the post-rationalization when burden of proof is asked for falls under any of the others I mentioned.

The truth is, you cannot conclude there to be a creator/God out of any such arguments since that is about attaching an assumption to that conclusion that has no relation to the actual premises. No flawed logic or ambiguity fallacy can save arguments from that fact.

If you want to prove the existence of God you can only use those argument's conclusions as part of the premises for a new argument. The problem with this is that there are no new arguments that hold up to the current knowledge in science and/or logical calculations so there is no way to present an argument with premises that makes logic and rational sense to the conclusion that there is a creator/God. They all fall flat which is stated over and over when they pop up on this forum. You cannot state that the existence of God is true, at closest you can state probability, but even there your numbers are way off.

I have estimated the probability that each piece of evidence on its own points of a creator of the universe: — Devans99

You're just making these numbers up. You estimate without any real logic applied.

You start at 50% probability for the question 'is there a creator/god? - IE because no evidence for/against has been considered yet. The first step of the calculation then is: — Devans99

How can you even calculate this probability? Based on what? Is there a 50% probability that there is a teapot flying in space, just because it's unable to be confirmed? This is not how you calculate probability in any logical or reasonable way. Your other numbers are also pulled out of thin air based on your own belief, not any rational calculation.

And you can't stack up probability like that either, it's flawed math, Gambler's fallacy. Especially when some of the points don't even point to any probability of a creator/God, like Big Bang. How is that a 50% probability of the existence of a creator/God?

Apply a little more reason to all of this, it makes no sense whatsoever. Look into the fallacies and biases, look over your math. You're just spamming posts with the same calculation without really listening to the counter-arguments.

None of them conclude there to be a creator. They could just as well point to an interdimensional stone that hit another interdimensional stone and the blast resulted in our four-dimensional spacetime through Big Bang — Christoffer

Then where did the stone come from? What created it? My argument (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5077/time-has-a-start/p1) concludes that the cause of any such stone must be non-natural. Its a very simple argument: if creation was natural and time was infinite then there would be infinite creations; there is only one creation. That rules out stones. That means a creator.

You're just making these numbers up. You estimate without any real logic applied. — Christoffer

Even if you use real low numbers; there is still a high chance that there is a creator.

How can you even calculate this probability? Based on what? Is there a 50% probability that there is a teapot flying in space, just because it's unable to be confirmed? — Christoffer

No because we have evidence that teapots do not fly and you are allowing for that in your probability estimate the full calculation is:

1. What is the probability of an object flying?
2. Start at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition for which we have admitted no evidence
3. First piece of evidence: object is a teapot
4. Revised probability calculation: 50% x 0% = 0%

So whenever you start with no evidence, you start at a 50% estimate. The question 'is there a creator' we start at 50% because we have not taken any evidence for/against and it's a boolean sample space that underlies the question.

Especially when some of the points don't even point to any probability of a creator/God, like Big Bang. How is that a 50% probability of the existence of a creator/God? — Christoffer

Was the big bang natural or non-natural event? Without taking any further evidence, you would start at 50% yes, 50% no. Then we look at the very unnatural way that space is expanding; this is no ordinary explosion; there is something unnnatural about it. Then we further consider then universe had very close to zero entropy at the Big Bang... highly unnatural. So actually the chances the Big Bang were unnatural, IE a creator, are probably much higher than 50%

You're just spamming posts with the same calculation without really listening to the counter-arguments. — Christoffer

I'm listening to your counterarguments its just they are not convincing...

Then where did the stone come from? — Devans99

You are missing the point, I'm saying that there might be something outside of spacetime that isn't a sentient creator. A starting point or a point that always was; that is dead as a stone and just as irrational as calling a real stone, creator or God. The essential thing is that you assume causality to work before Big Bang, but we have nothing that proves or disproves if there even was causality before. This assumption makes any causality/first-cause-argument flawed. It's ignorant of scientific theories and ignorant of rationality and logic.

concludes that the cause of any such stone must be non-natural. Its a very simple argument: if creation was natural and time was infinite then there would be infinite creations; there is only one creation. That rules out stones. That means a creator. — Devans99

The stone was a metaphorical idea of an interdimensional stone that does not apply to our universe physical laws. Have you ever conceptualized a tesseract? Now imagine beyond that level of complexity with unknown properties of something that we might not even define as matter, but still not sentient.

The "time has a start" argument assumes causality to be exactly the same after Big Bang as before it. It's an assumption not proved by the argument. That's it. You need to provide real scientific data on what was before Big Bang in order to support a conclusion that demands causality and laws of nature functioning as spacetime before Big Bang. If not, it could just as well be circular; space reaches a stretching point and inflate/collapse into a small point and then explodes again into Big Bang, infinite iterations without a starting point, circular. The point being, you cannot assume things when making a conclusion, therefore you are only doing assumptions and guesses, i.e fallacies.

No because we have evidence that teapots do not fly and you are allowing for that in your probability estimate the full calculation is: — Devans99

No, you don't, please read Russel's analogy and understand it before posting. It's frustrating when you don't understand the fallacies your making or haven't read why the fallacies are fallacies and why they render your arguments wrong.

1. What is the probability of an object flying?
2. Start at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition for which we have admitted no evidence
3. First piece of evidence: object is a teapot
4. Revised probability calculation: 50% x 0% = 0% — Devans99

How is that even a logical calculation? You're just making these calculations up. Stop the pseudoscience nonsense.

Was the big bang natural or non-natural event? Without taking any further evidence, you would start at 50% yes, 50% no. — Devans99

No, you have no probability of either since you have no idea how to define the framing of the question since you don't know what was before. Probability needs data and you have none.

Then we look at the very unnatural way that space is expanding; this is no ordinary explosion; there is something unnnatural about it. — Devans99

What? You cannot define it as unnatural based on not understanding physics or know anything about the questions unanswered. You are doing assumptions all over the place to fit your narrative.

Then we further consider then universe had very close to zero entropy at the Big Bang... highly unnatural. — Devans99

How so? You need to know what came before and what's beyond our current dimensions, you need to solve the unification theory, you need to know how entropy behaves at heat death, you need to know what enabled zero entropy. You cannot brand it as unnatural in the way you do just because you believe it to be.

So actually the chances the Big Bang were unnatural, IE a creator, are probably much higher than 50% — Devans99

No, it doesn't. You don't even care to apply yourself, you are making fallacies all over the place.

I'm listening to your counterarguments its just they are not convincing... — Devans99

And you are not even making sense. There's no logic to your calculations, there's no rational understanding of how to verify or falsify your argument and you are writing fallacy after fallacy.

Do you truly understand burden of proof? Do you truly understand begging the question? Do you truly understand false cause? I can go on.

You are not even trying to take these fallacies into consideration, you are just spamming the same thing over and over. Apply verification/falsification, actual logic and apply more effort into understanding the counter-arguments before writing. And stop the tu quoque fallacy and apply yourself.

You are missing the point, I'm saying that there might be something outside of spacetime that isn't a sentient creator. A starting point or a point that always was that is dead as a stone and just as irrational as calling a real stone, creator or God. The essential thing is that you assume causality to work before Big Bang, but we have nothing that proves or disproves if there even was causality before. — Christoffer

No, you are missing the point; any natural starting point for the Big Bang (with infinite time) implies infinite Big Bangs. So the Big Bang was not natural.

How on earth could a non-sentient creator create something like spacetime? It clearly requires intelligence. Plus all the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe (which I don't want to really go through again) are not accounted for without intelligence (likewise I don't want to have to refute the WAP and SAP again).

I do not assume causality to work before Big Bang. If causality does not apply before the Big Bang, that falls under the 'Can get something from nothing' axiom. IE it would happen infinite time with infinite time if it were a natural event. So my argument is free from 'cause and effect' as an axiom.

Now imagine beyond that level of complexity with unknown properties of something that we might not even define as matter, but still not sentient. — Christoffer

I think my argument is still sufficiently general to cover this; can you be more specific?

No, you don't, please read Russel's analogy and understand it before posting — Christoffer

'Nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely'

I understand the analogy and agree with it; the Christian God is very unlikely because we have evidence that (for example) omnipotence is very unlikely. I am not arguing for a Christian God.

How is that even a logical calculation? You're just making these calculations up. Stop the pseudoscience nonsense. — Christoffer

Your math sucks. I have a 1st class in math.

Probability needs data and you have none. — Christoffer

Yes but my point is; in the absence of evidence/data you assume a normal distribution. Your statistics sucks as well.

And you are not even making sense. There's no logic to your calculations, there's no rational understanding of how to verify or falsify your argument and you are writing fallacy after fallacy.

Do you truly understand burden of proof? Do you truly understand begging the question? Do you truly understand false cause? I can go on. — Christoffer

I'm using logic and maths. You are using waffle.

And the Laws of Nature. Do they exist? And if so, where? Show me one! — Wayfarer

Well they exist in the natural habitat of laws, books. And now also on the internet. :wink:

Furthermore, I should add that I don’t believe God exists. But that is because ‘existence’ is precisely what ‘the transcendent’ is transcendent in relation to. However, the thread doesn’t ask whether ‘God exists’; it asks whether ‘God is real’. And if metaphysics is to mean anything at all, then it needs to be understood that these are different propositions. — Wayfarer

Sure, but I think it's also obvious that, e.g. laws aren't real in the same sense as God is, or could be.

if creation was natural and time was infinite then there would be infinite creations; there is only one creation. — Devans99

How do you know there is only one creation? You know there is one creation. It doesn't follow that there is only one.

Burden of proof applies to the one making the claim. Read Russel and stop ignoring counter-arguments. — Christoffer

I have a nitpick here: burden of proof is a legal concept. The scientific equivalent would be a null hypothesis, or more generally parsimony. In general philosophy there is only the soundness of arguments.

How on earth could a non-sentient creator create something like spacetime; it clearly requires intelligence. — Devans99

This clearly is not clear at all.

Plus all the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe (which I don't want to really go through again) are not accounted for without intelligence (likewise I don't want to have to refute the WAP and SAP again). — Devans99

It seems relevant to point out that thought experiments are not evidence. That we can imagine various probabilities doesn't mean those probabilities are real.

Yes but my point is; in the absence of evidence you assume a normal distribution. Your statistics sucks as well. — Devans99

No, in the absence of evidence you assume nothing at all. You only assume a normal distribution for cases where you have evidence that there is a distribution, but you don't know the details.

See the "doomsday argument" for an illustration how assuming a normal distribution leads to an absurd result.

How do you know there is only one creation? You know there is one creation. It doesn't follow that there is only one. — Echarmion

If creation was natural, its has a non-zero probability of occurring. If time was infinite, there would therefore be infinite instances of creation and we would have reached infinite density by now.

No, in the absence of evidence you assume nothing at all. You only assume a normal distribution for cases where you have evidence that there is a distribution, but you don't know the details. — Echarmion

So given a toss of a coin, which would you assume:

- It comes up tails 100%
- It comes up heads 100%
- It comes up heads/tails 50%/50%

It has to be the third surely???

The same type of question, should we assume?

- 100% certain no creator
- 100% certain there is a creator
- 50% / 50%

If we have no evidence either way?

If creation was natural, its has a non-zero probability of occurring. If time was infinite, there would therefore be infinite instances of creation and we would have reached infinite density by now. — Devans99

Unless energy is conserved. In that case, creation just infinitely repeats itself, and we would never notice.

So given a toss of a fair coin, which would you assume:

- It comes up tails 100%
- It comes up heads 100%
- It comes up heads/tails 50%/50%

It has to be the third surely??? — Devans99

Sure, but that's not a "no evidence" situation. I know what a coin is. I know what "tossing a coin" means. I know there is a finite number of results for a coin toss, and a finite number of coin tosses, and I can therefore apply a normal distribution. These constraints aren't given when we talk about general cosmology.

The same type of question, should we assume?

- 100% certain no creator
- 100% certain there is a creator
- 50% / 50%

If we have no evidence either way? — Devans99

We shouldn't assume anything unless we have a reason to make assumptions. God is not a coin we're tossing. How do you figure there is a probability distribution in the first place?

What is the chance you are in the first 30% of all humans who will ever have lived? According to you, it's 30%, and there is therefore a 70% chance that humanity will die out within a few generations.

Unless energy is conserved. In that case, creation just infinitely repeats itself, and we would never notice. — Echarmion

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang.

Imagine a clock that has always existed. It can’t read infinity as it’s impossible to count to infinity and it can’t read any lessor number as that would be incompatible with ‘always existed’. So such a clock cannot ‘always exist’. If a clock can’t ‘always exist’, nothing else can either.

If something always existed, it has no start. If it has no start (call that time t), so time t+1 is not defined, nor is t+2 (because t+1) is missing. All the way to the end of time, it’s all undefined.

We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).

We shouldn't assume anything unless we have a reason to make assumptions — Echarmion

The reason I need to make an assumption is I want to calculate the probability there is a creator.

How do you figure there is a probability distribution in the first place? — Echarmion

All unknown questions have answers. So there is a boolean probability distribution for unknown questions. If you were given a list of 1000 unknown boolean questions, would you approximate:

- The answer is 'no' for all 1000
- The answer is 'yes' for all 1000
- The answer is 'yes' for 500

So I have to start somewhere with the question of 'is there a creator?'. If I start at 100% no; I'm showing bias against there being a creator. If I start at 100% yes; I'm showing bias for there being a creator. So I start at 50%/50%.

What other real thing do you need to ask that question about? — Bloginton Blakley

What other?

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang. — Devans99

Please present a logical argument as to why things need to "come into being" in order to exist. I don't know that I was born, for example, from my perspective, I have always existed. But let's not get distracted by metaphors: what is your actual argument?

Imagine a clock that has always existed. It can’t read infinity as it’s impossible to count to infinity and it can’t read any lessor number as that would be incompatible with ‘always existed’. So such a clock cannot ‘always exist’. If a clock can’t ‘always exist’, nothing else can either. — Devans99

Why would a clock that has always existed read infinity? Actual clocks don't actually start at the beginning of time and count up. And even if they did, that I cannot perceive or understand such a clock doesn't mean it cannot exist.

We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number). — Devans99

Infinity is not itself a contradiction. We can clearly calculate using infinities, even infinities of infinities. That we cannot assign a number to infinity doesn't make the concept incoherent.

The reason I need to make an assumption is I want to calculate the probability there is a creator. — Devans99

No, that's the reason you want to make an assumption. You're not faced with an uncertain future event, you're faced with metaphysical uncertainty.

All unknown questions have answers. — Devans99

Ha! I look forward to seeing you prove that.

So there is a boolean probability distribution for unknown questions. If you were given a list of 1000 unknown boolean questions, would you approximate: — Devans99

Note that you are presupposing a finite number of boolean questions that have one and only one answer, and the answer can be known. Where do you take these assumptions from?

So I have to start somewhere with the question of 'is there a creator?'. If I start at 100% no; I'm showing bias against there being a creator. If I start at 100% yes; I'm showing bias for there being a creator. So I start at 50%/50%. — Devans99

Or you start at "I don't know".

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang.
— Devans99

Please present a logical argument as to why things need to "come into being" in order to exist. I don't know that I was born, for example, from my perspective, I have always existed. But let's not get distracted by metaphors: what is your actual argument? — Echarmion

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being.

Why would a clock that has always existed read infinity? Actual clocks don't actually start at the beginning of time and count up. And even if they did, that I cannot perceive or understand such a clock doesn't mean it cannot exist. — Echarmion

It's a thought experiment. The point is such a clock is logically impossible. But being a clock is possible. So it must be that 'existing forever' is impossible.

Infinity is not itself a contradiction. — Echarmion

Its not a number and it is a contradiction:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

Or you start at "I don't know" — Echarmion

Exactly, you start with I don't know; ie not 100% yes, not 100% no, but equidistant between the opposites: 50%/50%.

No, you are missing the point; any natural starting point for the Big Bang (with infinite time) implies infinite Big Bangs. So the Big Bang was not natural. — Devans99

You are still concluding it to be unnatural without being able to apply data on what is natural or not about it. I.e begging the question.

How on earth could a non-sentient creator create something like spacetime? It clearly requires intelligence. — Devans99

How can you draw that conclusion? You answer a question about something you have no idea about, where's the logic here? You make assumptions based on your belief here.
Begging the question

Plus all the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe — Devans99

A flawed argument cannot support another flawed argument to enforce an assumed conclusion. It's like fallacy inception.

I do not assume causality to work before Big Bang. If causality does not apply before the Big Bang, that falls under the 'Can get something from nothing' axiom. — Devans99

No, because'Can get something from nothing' still implies that you can define exactly what was before. Can you disprove that the Big Bang wasn't a quantum probability within infinite time, therefore 100% probable to occur instantly? You can't disprove or disprove anything without data on what was before Big Bang. "Nothing" cannot be applied to the reasoning either since you need to define what "nothing" is based on nothing more than assumptions of how to define what was before Big Bang.

So my argument is free from 'cause and effect' as an axiom. — Devans99

No, because you don't know the properties of pre-Big Bag so you cannot define anything at all.

I think my argument is still sufficiently general to cover this; can you be more specific? — Devans99

No, it isn't. The specifics and my point is that every kind of definition of what was before Big Bang is pure speculation and even the properties of pre-Big Bang cannot be quantified into any kind of logic if you don't have knowledge and data of pre-Big Bang.

Your argument is equivalent of a scientist saying that he is certain of what was pre-Big Bang, no serious scientist would ever make such a claim before we have proper data and math to cover it, so why would you be certain of anything and how could you use that uncertainty as a premise in your argument? It's seriously flawed.

I understand the analogy and agree with it; the Christian God is very unlikely because we have evidence that (for example) omnipotence is very unlikely. I am not arguing for a Christian God. — Devans99

Then move on to John Wisdom's gardener analogy.
Then answer this:
If you have such an undefined definition of what God is that it could be considered "whatever", then the metaphorical interdimensional stone could be the God you are arguing for, then why call it God at all if not to apply you own belief to an object of no sentience?
Then:
If you have God as undefined, but sentient, you have defined it with at least one property, that of sentience, which has no support in the argument you are making. Therefore, you assume it to have sentience out of your belief and will that this is true, not out of any evidence for it.

There is no evidence at all if the evidence is an assumption based on flawed reasoning.

Your math sucks. I have a 1st class in math. — Devans99

Are you using yourself as the authority in an appeal to authority fallacy?
Nice narcissism there. You apply your own invented probability number and use it based on how you want it to work in the equation.

Yes but my point is; in the absence of evidence/data you assume a normal distribution. Your statistics sucks as well. — Devans99

You are drawing a true conclusion out of a probability value based on your own invented values of each points probability. With some points being "Big Bang 50%"; of what? God? It's flawed. Probability needs data on the outcome so that it can be quantified. Since we don't know anything about pre-Big Bang, you have no data to put into your calculation. Therefore you cannot calculate any type of probability for God.

I'm using logic and maths. You are using waffle. — Devans99

No, you are using your belief as groundwork for your conclusion. Logic and math cannot prove anything before Big Bang, you need physics to do that and no physicist would ever say they are certain or have a probability of any kind of truth about what is before Big Bang since they have insufficient data to calculate this.

• God doesn't exist within logic and math as a quantifiable entity.
• If you define God with a property of "sentience" it is a defined God.
• Using math and logic to calculate the probability of something defined, requires data to support the definition before the probability of the defined can be calculated.
• There is no data to support the definition of God as "sentient".

Therefore math and logic cannot prove anything related to a sentient god. It can only provide probabilities based on the laws of physics since scientific theories are proven true and can be applied within the calculated probabilities.

• Natural and unnatural are concepts without proved scientific definitions and can't be used to calculate what is and what isn't natural.
• The fine-tuning argument is a fallacy that assumes the conclusion before the argument, it has no scientific validity.
• Properties of anything and definitions of the properties themselves are unknown about what came before the Big Bang, physicists have at this time no data to support anything and no conclusions to give.

Therefore nothing can be proved about what came before Big Bang and anything concluded about
pre-Big Bang is only speculation and assumptions only.

There's your waffle.

However, I do know something very sure, there was something that triggered our whole existence because everything we see around us are well organized and placed in order. Flower petals in Fibonacci series is one such example.

–YnY

You appear to hint that something had to think that out, but that is less likely than nature adapting certain traits because it's the traits that over time survived.

One such trait could be to grow like the fibonacci series.
They have to grow in some kind of series, they can't just grow completely random, well some things grow quite randomly, but if something is to survive it can't only be randomly.

Whatever way nature would grow in would form some kind of series. So it's doesn't show you anything other than that life often repeats some patterns.

There are millions of things that doesn't grow in the fibonacci series.

Contributing everything to a creator has never throughout history given us an answer to anything. Nothing.

Everything that at one point was attributed to God has been as our knowledge expanded proven to be caused by something else.

You become sick, it's not god's will, someone sneezed on you and you caught a virus.

It's a storm. The god or gods must be angry.
No it's reactions in nature.

If a god existed these thing would had turned out to really be gods will.

That unicorn could exist is infinitely more likely than that a single God does and if such a God does, cares what we do


I will give you a thought experiment.

Lets say God created this as a simulation. The purpose is to see how good people behave, and let the God people come to his Kingdom.

Now imagine you created a simulation similar to the Sims but much more advanced for AI personas to test what ai personas you could trust if you took their AI and put it into real physical bodies.

If some of these AI personas started to convince themselves that God existed and they had you on their side and started wars with other AI would you want them? No. Because if they believe that a higher being justified their action but actually you didn't, than once you 'manufactured' them as a real robot or physical lifeform they would do the same in this world.

You might even put in a faked religion, a myth for them, something impossible to prove, just to see what they do. And those who believe without evidence you would consider gullible and wouldn't want to put into real powerful robot bodies, since you wouldn't want anyone to trick them.

Lets say some AIs in your simulation play hockey. One of the teams believes in a God, and they pray that God will be with them.

What does that mean that they want a God on their side?

Do they want you or this God they believe in to intervene and help the puck get into the goal when it's a 50% chance that it would miss otherwise? If so, aren't they actually asking for this being to cheat?

They might because, they want help and they want you to help them but not the other side. Thus they want an special advantage that the others should not have simply for believing in something that they really cannot prove.

Getting treated better than the other team outside of their own performance would be cheating.

Not all but some prayers would be considered as a try to cheat. To get advantages without actually doing anything.

Thus they are more selfish than the other team that doesn't ask to get special treatment.

And thus they are not the AI versions you would turn into physical beings in this world.


So with that I would like to prove that if a god exist you are probably more likely to go to heaven if you don't believe in that God, because otherwise what is it that says that you wouldn't continue that behaviour in the heaven and believe that a even higher being created that heaven?

If God appears to you as a normal person in that heaven.

Just as you would appear a normal person to the AI if you took it out of the simulation and into a physical body?

Nothing.

I have a nitpick here: burden of proof is a legal concept. The scientific equivalent would be a null hypothesis, or more generally parsimony. In general philosophy there is only the soundness of arguments. — Echarmion

Burden of proof applies to deduction, no? If the conclusion is to be considered true it needs full support without fallacies or biases. An induction argument requires probability. But if the argument is a true conclusion that there is a probability of a specific number, it's a deductive argument about the probability. If the proof of this deduction is premises which themselves are speculation, undefined or based on incomplete/faulty arguments, the deduction cannot be valid.

But Null hypothesis also works for the claim of a sentient God. It's a null hypothesis, but you cannot calculate a probability of that null hypothesis based on flawed data and you need to adress your claim as a null hypothesis.

So given a toss of a fair coin, which would you assume:

- It comes up tails 100%
- It comes up heads 100%
- It comes up heads/tails 50%/50% — Devans99

I know a coin, I know each side, I know what happens when I flip it and gravity pulls it to the ground. Therefore I can define the probability of a coin toss as 50/50.

God exist or God does not exist is not 50/50 since we don't have a coin, we don't have sides, we don't have the gravity or the flip.

Exactly, you start with I don't know; ie not 100% yes, not 100% no' but equidistant between the opposites 50%/50%. — Devans99

You cannot create a fantasy and apply a probability to it. I cannot say "I think there might be a unicorn" and based solely on that idea conclude there to be a 50/50 chance of it existing. That's total nonsense.

Burden of proof applies to deduction, no? If the conclusion is to be considered true it needs full support without fallacies or biases. — Christoffer

Isn't that better described as validity?

But Null hypothesis also works for the claim of a sentient God. It's a null hypothesis, but you cannot calculate a probability of that null hypothesis based on flawed data and you need to adress your claim as a null hypothesis. — Christoffer

It does, I agree. I just wanted to point out that "burden of proof" is not general for every debate. It has a specific function: to resolve a non-liquet situation. Because in a legal case, you need an answer. Just like within the scientific method, you need to predict a result.

But for philosophy in general, there is no such need. "I don't know" is a valid answer.

But for philosophy in general, there is no such need. "I don't know" is a valid answer. — Echarmion

Isn't that dependent on the type of claim and argument? A deduction must be true, an induction must be a probability, but both need valid premises. Otherwise, it's just ranting from a chaotic mind and everything comes down to "this is my opinion", "this is that person's opinion".
Philosophy should be about dialectics, pointing out flaws in others arguments and reading objections to your own in order to fine-tune the argument towards a valid deductive or inductive conclusion.

Maybe I'm just leaning towards analytical philosophy more than continental? Continental is interesting and thought-provoking and I like it, but when doing a dialectic it rarely holds up if not supported by actual evidence and science.

You are still concluding it to be unnatural without being able to apply data on what is natural or not about it. I.e begging the question. — Christoffer

No I am using maths. Time is infinite. I define a natural event as one that has a non-zero probability of occurring. Infinity times any non-zero number is infinity. Hence an infinite number of Big Bangs and infinite matter density. So the Big Bang was not a natural event or time is finite.

How can you draw that conclusion? You answer a question about something you have no idea about, where's the logic here? You make assumptions based on your belief here.
Begging the question — Christoffer

Because I've established that the cause of the universe was non-naturally occurring or time is finite. Both of which imply a creator.

A flawed argument cannot support another flawed argument to enforce an assumed conclusion. It's like fallacy inception. — Christoffer

There are no flaws in the fine-tuning argument.

No, because'Can get something from nothing' still implies that you can define exactly what was before. Can you disprove that the Big Bang wasn't a quantum probability within infinite time, therefore 100% probable to occur instantly? You can't disprove or disprove anything without data on what was before Big Bang. "Nothing" cannot be applied to the reasoning either since you need to define what "nothing" is based on nothing more than assumptions of how to define what was before Big Bang. — Christoffer

But my argument addresses what happens in the case of both:

- Can get something from nothing
- Can't get something from nothing

IE 100% of cases. Did you read the OP?

If quantum fluctuations cause a matter increase on average then we get infinite density with infinite time so it can't be quantum fluctuations that caused the Big Bang.

No, because you don't know the properties of pre-Big Bag so you cannot define anything at all. — Christoffer

But what properties do we need to know? My argument makes no assumptions at all about the properties of the universe pre Big Bang. Maybe you did not read the OP. The point is if you make no assumptions about the state of the universe pre-big bang, you can still reason about it.

If you have such an undefined definition of what God is that it could be considered "whatever", then the metaphorical interdimensional stone could be the God you are arguing for, then why call it God at all if not to apply you own belief to an object of no sentience?
Then:
If you have God as undefined, but sentient, you have defined it with at least one property, that of sentience, which has no support in the argument you are making. Therefore, you assume it to have sentienceout of your belief and will that this is true, not out of any evidence for it. — Christoffer

A natural creation implies multiple creations, so the creator must be unnatural; IE a zero percent probability of naturally occurring, IE God. Plus fine tuning for life of the universe/multiverse is impossible without an intelligent creator.

You are drawing a true conclusion out of a probability value based on your own invented values of each points probability. With some points being "Big Bang 50%"; of what? God? It's flawed. Probability needs data on the outcome so that it can be quantified. Since we don't know anything about pre-Big Bang, you have no data to put into your calculation. Therefore you cannot calculate any type of probability for God. — Christoffer

I made conservative estimates on the percentages. It is a systematic and mathematically correct way to carry out a probability meta-analysis. At least I'm making an effect instead of throwing my hands up. 'I don't know' is not an informative answer.

No, you are using your belief as groundwork for your conclusion. Logic and math cannot prove anything before Big Bang — Christoffer

Point to exactly where I am using 'belief' in my argument please. I believe in logic and maths and nothing else. 1+1=2 applies before and after the big bang so yes, maths and logic can make statements about what happened before the Big Bang (as long as no axioms about the pre-Big Bang period are used).

God doesn't exist within logic and math as a quantifiable entity. — Christoffer

But the question 'Is there a creator?' does exist within logic and is fair game.

Natural and unnatural are concepts without proved scientific definitions and can't be used to calculate what is and what isn't natural. — Christoffer

I have defined these terms; again:

- Natural events have a non-zero probability of occurring naturally given sufficient time
- Unnatural events have a zero probability of occurring naturally however much time

So we can use these definitions to reason about the pre-Big Bang universe.

The fine-tuning argument is a fallacy that assumes the conclusion before the argument, it has no scientific validity.
Properties of anything and definitions of the properties themselves are unknown about what came before the Big Bang, physicists have at this time no data to support anything and no conclusions to give. — Christoffer

Fine tuning is not a fallacy; there are about 20 physical constants that if changed would result in no life in the universe.

I have not in my argument made any assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period. I have not even assumed gravity, the standard model, cause and effect. So as there are no assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period it is OK to reason about it.

God exist or God does not exist is not 50/50 since we don't have a coin, we don't have sides, we don't have the gravity or the flip. — Christoffer

Where then would you suggest I start with a probability analysis if it is not 50%/50% ?

You're ignoring half my posts. I wonder why.

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being. — Devans99

You have repeated your claim 4 times. Anyways here is an argument:
It is possible that things can exist without coming into being if it's possible to conceive of existence without also conceiving the existing coming into being.

If coming into being is a necessary part of existence, then it is necessary to conceive as something not existing in order to conceive of it as existing (since coming into being is changing from one to the other).

I can conceive of myself as existing, but not as not existing. Therefore, things can exist without coming into being.

It's a thought experiment. The point is such a clock is logically impossible. But being a clock is possible. So it must be that 'existing forever' is impossible. — Devans99

It's begging the question. Your premise already includes the conclusion.

Its not a number and it is a contradiction:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0 — Devans99

No, it does not imply that, because infinity is not a number.

Exactly, you start with I don't know; ie not 100% yes, not 100% no, but equidistant between the opposites: 50%/50%. — Devans99

You can not assign probabilities to everything.

Isn't that dependent on the type of claim and argument? — Christoffer

Sure.

A deduction must be true, an induction must be a probability, but both need valid premises. Otherwise, it's just ranting from a chaotic mind and everything comes down to "this is my opinion", "this is that person's opinion". — Christoffer

Yes.

Philosophy should be about dialectics, pointing out flaws in others arguments and reading objections to your own in order to fine-tune the argument towards a valid deductive or inductive conclusion. — Christoffer

This is one form of philosophy, the systematic kind. There are disputes on whether or not this approach is the "one true" philosophy. I personally much prefer the systematic approach, but I don't know that it's the only valid one.

It is possible that things can exist without coming into being if it's possible to conceive of existence without also conceiving the existing coming into being.

If coming into being is a necessary part of existence, then it is necessary to conceive as something not existing in order to conceive of it as existing (since coming into being is changing from one to the other).

I can conceive of myself as existing, but not as not existing. Therefore, things can exist without coming into being. — Echarmion

Nice try but its impossible. Being able to conceive of something does not make it possible; it has to be 'logically conceive' of something and existing forever is not logical. Also I can conceive of you not existing - there was a time when you were not born.

No, it does not imply that, because infinity is not a number. — Echarmion

Right, so that means my original proof that an infinite regress is impossible holds:

'We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).'

I define... — Devans99

That's the problem right there.

Because I've established... — Devans99

Not if you began with "I define".

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

There are no flaws in the fine-tuning argument. — Devans99

You might read the counter-arguments by Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield, Graham Priest, William H. Jefferys, Elliott Sober, Robert L. Park, Victor Stenger.

Prove their points wrong, I've already given mine. Just saying it has no flaws is uneducated and wrong about the argument. Those people found plenty of flaws, but you are right because... you say so?

But my argument addresses what happens in the case of both:

- Can get something from nothing
- Can't get something from nothing

IE 100% of cases. Did you read the OP?

If quantum fluctuations cause a matter increase on average then we get infinite density with infinite time so it can't be quantum fluctuations that caused the Big Bang. — Devans99

You still don't know the properties of things or the properties themselves before Big Bang. So you cannot conclude anything since you are talking about something probably (based on science) outside of spacetime itself. If you cannot define the dimensions, things or properties themselves, you cannot conclude anything, this is fact. You don't know more than the scientific consensus and the scientific theories around, so why argue that you do?

But what properties do we need to know? My argument makes no assumptions at all about the properties of the universe pre Big Bang. Maybe you did not read the OP. The point is if you make no assumptions about the state of the universe pre-big bang, you can still reason about it. — Devans99

You make an assumption about how it happened, i.e there was a sentient creator, God, that's a pretty big assumption about pre-Big Bang, right? The reasoning you do assumes a sentient God as a property of something you cannot possibly know about at this time and you use that as a value to calculate. Why can't you see this flaw in your reasoning?

A natural creation implies multiple creations, so the creator must be unnatural; IE a zero percent probability of naturally occurring, IE God. Plus fine tuning for life of the universe/multiverse is impossible without an intelligent creator. — Devans99

You still haven't defined natural and unnatural post your own assumption i.e...

I define... — Devans99

...and even if you validate it as unnatural, it doesn't mean it's God, that is an assumption.

And the fine-tuning argument is still not as valid as you accept it to be. Can you please do some falsification on it? Instead of just Texas Sharp-Shooting everything in your reasoning?

Here's a quote from physicist Robert L. Park:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life. — Robert L. Park

Then you can go through more falsifying by looking into the names I mentioned above on the matter. Problem is that you accept the fine-tuning argument, therefore you have the assumption of God in your head while making your own argument. That's why it's flawed.

I made conservative estimates on the percentages. It is a systematic and mathematically correct way to carry out a probability meta-analysis. At least I'm making an effect instead of throwing my hands up. 'I don't know' is not an informative answer. — Devans99

Your calculations do not have anything to do with a sentient God, period. Stop doing a causation/correlation fallacy and make assumptions out of that to conclude nothing that has support in the premises. You are actually not listening to any of the counter-arguments you get, you just decide which assumptions and arguments are correct, then do your calculation based on what you think is correct and conclude that it has a probability without any connection to anything other than your assumptions.

I can not calculate the probability of a unicorn standing in my backyard, but I can calculate the probability of a horse. How is this not crystal clear?

Point to exactly where I am using 'belief' in my argument please. I believe in logic and maths and nothing else. 1+1=2 applies before and after the big bang so yes, maths and logic can make statements about what happened before the Big Bang (as long as no axioms about the pre-Big Bang period are used). — Devans99

God, a sentient God, it is not a math number or quantifiable, it is your belief it is your unicorn. You are trying to calculate the probability of the existence of a unicorn by applying valid math on made up probability values about a unicorn that you assumed to exist before the calculation of probability. It's pure nonsense. It's not 1+1=2, it's 1+1=[UNICORN]

But the question 'Is there a creator?' does exist within logic and is fair game. — Devans99

"Is there a creator?" is a vague question that through logic conclude it to be a sentient God, without nothing more than math.

I have defined these terms; again:

- Natural events have a non-zero probability of occurring naturally given sufficient time
- Unnatural events have a zero probability of occurring naturally however much time — Devans99

Even with this reasoning, how can you conclude Big Bang to be unnatural if you don't know the things, properties or properties themselves of what was before Big Bang? How can you define if Big Bang was natural or unnatural when you don't have any data since science has no data on the event themselves?

So we can use these definitions to reason about the pre-Big Bang universe. — Devans99

No, we can't, because you cannot define whether or not it was natural or unnatural at the same time as your definition of natural and unnatural is your own. So you cannot connect it to anything pre-Big Bang.

Fine tuning is not a fallacy; there are about 20 physical constants that if changed would result in no life in the universe. — Devans99

What does that prove? How can you not just turn that around and say that because the universe evolved these 20 physical constants it enabled life to evolve? There's no connection between any intention of fine-tuning and the natural evolution from these constants to life. You apply the assumption that there can only be these constants if someone intended for life, which is only an assumption and therefore a fallacy. How can you possibly connect the constants to the intention of life? False cause fallacy if I ever saw one. Also, there are 22 known constants, not 20.

I have not in my argument made any assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period. I have not even assumed gravity, the standard model, cause and effect. So as there are no assumptions about the pre-Big Bang period it is OK to reason about it. — Devans99

A sentient God as a creator is your assumption. Valid conclusions end just after Big Bang, since that's where we are at in science, beyond that is speculation and if you are trying to conclude anything with "sentient God the creator" you are making assumptions about what was before Big Bang. This is crystal clear.

Where then would you suggest I start with a probability analysis if it is not 50%/50% ? — Devans99

You cannot, because you cannot measure the probability of something that is made up, like a unicorn. If we can prove that there are signs of a unicorn, we can calculate probabilities of them existing. But we cannot use probability to calculate nothing. Since we don't have any idea what came before Big Bang, and since there are no arguments that show signs of any sentience responsible for the universe, we have no properties to calculate. It is essentially like creating a probability calculation for the probability of a unicorn or a teapot in space by saying there's a 50/50 chance there is a teapot in space and a unicorn in my backyard just because I believe there to be one there and one in space. Then demand people to accept my logical calculation out of 50/50 without even explaining how it relates to either teapots or unicorns in any logical and verified way.

This is one form of philosophy, the systematic kind. There are disputes on whether or not this approach is the "one true" philosophy. I personally much prefer the systematic approach, but I don't know that it's the only valid one. — Echarmion

At least it demands true arguments without fallacies and biases, everything else is just speculation, regardless of validity as in it's the same as a shepherd seeing a dog that looks like a sheep on a hill far away. He concludes there is a sheep in front of him, when out of his sight, behind the hill the dog stands on there is a real sheep, making his conclusion true, but not correct as an argument.

Systematic and analytical philosophy demands valid premises, that's why I regard continental as thought-provoking, but invalid to make true conclusions from if they cannot be validated through proper arguments.